A cursory look at history reveals that Jesus’ life, death, and
resurrection did not eliminate scapegoating. In fact, Christianity has a long
and sad history of scapegoating, the victims at various times including people
of color, women, homosexuals, people of differing faiths, and fellow Christians
who do not share the particular Christian theology of those in power. Even the
Passion, which should have revealed the scandal of the scapegoating mechanism,
has been an impetus for scapegoating. Many Jews have suffered ostracism or
violence because Christians have blamed “the Jews” for Jesus’ death.

Those who have scapegoated “the Jews” have evidently neglected
that Jesus and Jesus’ first followers (including his disciples) were Jewish.
Neither Jesus nor his followers rejected Judaism; instead, they propounded a new
theology grounded in Judaism. Indeed, it is not surprising that Jesus’ ministry
found fertile ground among Jews. One reason for this is that Judaism had made
great progress in the difficult task of revealing the scapegoating mechanism,
exemplified best by the song of the Suffering Servant (see Part 22) and the
writings of the later prophets (see Part 23). If Jesus had first presented his
theology to Gentile communities, he would likely have been dismissed
out-of-hand.

Jesus tried to make clear that the scapegoating mechanism was
universal and not particular to the Jews. Jesus cursed the Pharisees, “Therefore
also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of
whom they will kill and persecute,’ that the blood of all the prophets, shed
from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation, from the
blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” (Lk 11:49-51). Notably, neither Cain
nor Abel was Jewish. Violence arising from mimetic rivalry, “shed from the
foundation of the world,” is as old as humankind and has nothing to do with
Judaism, per se. Also, Abel is not normally considered a prophet. However,
Abel’s story is prophetic in that it, like the Cross, reveals the innocence of
the scapegoated victim.

Finally, as Rev. Nuechterlein has observed, “The crucifixion’s
anthropological significance is lost if responsibility for its violence is
shifted from all to some.” In other words, to the degree that Christians
attribute the crucifixion to a group of bad people, the crucifixion fails to
reveal the universal scapegoating mechanism. We fail to appreciate the full
significance of the Cross if we fail to recognize that, every time we scapegoat,
every time we fail to reflect God’s love and forgiveness, we are participating
in the crucifixion of Christ. Jesus said that whatever we do to “my brethren,”
we do to him (Mt 25:35-45).

Should we consider animals among Jesus’ “brethren”? I think
so. The Bible teaches us that God cares for animals and Jesus cares for animals.
Whether we should regard animals as equal to humans is not the issue. They are
weak, vulnerable, and able to suffer and, consequently, are undoubtedly among
the “least of these.” Humankind’s cruelty to animals is a form of sacrificial
violence (see parts 28-30) and is part of the ongoing crucifixion of Christ.

Next week, I will further explore ways in which I think
Christians have often misunderstood the passion story, which has contributed to
scapegoating violence.